These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Humanistic communication in the evaluation of shared decision making: A systematic review.
    Author: Kunneman M, Gionfriddo MR, Toloza FJK, Gärtner FR, Spencer-Bonilla G, Hargraves IG, Erwin PJ, Montori VM.
    Journal: Patient Educ Couns; 2019 Mar; 102(3):452-466. PubMed ID: 30458971.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To assess the extent to which evaluations of shared decision making (SDM) assess the extent and quality of humanistic communication (i.e., respect, compassion, empathy). METHODS: We systematically searched Web of Science and Scopus for prospective studies published between 2012 and February 2018 that evaluated SDM in actual clinical decisions using validated SDM measures. Two reviewers working independently and in duplicate extracted all statements from eligible studies and all items from SDM measurement instruments that referred to humanistic patient-clinician communication. RESULTS: Of the 154 eligible studies, 14 (9%) included ≥1 statements regarding humanistic communication, either in framing the study (N = 2), measuring impact (e.g., empathy, respect, interpersonal skills; N = 9), as patients'/clinicians' accounts of SDM (N = 2), in interpreting study results (N = 3), and in discussing implications of study findings (N = 3). Of the 192 items within the 11 SDM measurement instruments deployed in the included studies, 7 (3.6%) items assessed humanistic communication. CONCLUSION: Assessments of the quality of SDM focus narrowly on SDM technique and rarely assess humanistic aspects of patient-clinician communication. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Considering SDM as merely a technique may reduce SDM's patient-centeredness and undermine its' contribution to patient care.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]